Posted on 02/20/2026 7:26:18 AM PST by NeverTyranny
The Supreme Court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency law to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners, delivering a blow to the president in a case centered on one of his signature economic policies — one he characterized as "life or death" for the U.S. economy.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices invalidated Trump's tariffs.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November in the case, which centered on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his "Liberation Day" tariffs on most countries, including a 10% global tariff and a set of higher, so-called "reciprocal" tariffs on certain nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Oh no! And I noticed this was released on a Friday. The President is not gonna be very happy. Now I wonder what effect it will have on the economy. All this just goes to show how things can go sour in just a day.
Just heard the news and saw Jonathan Turley and a professor of law at UC Berkeley discussing it with Shannon Bream of FOX cable news...It sounds like other avenues could have been used by the government to get the same thing done other than what was chosen as the reason for enacting tariffs.
This could get real messy unless Congress wants to get involved and fix it by legislation which is probably a no go! Interesting but who are the plaintiffs in the case? Are these the plaintiffs:
“”The high court agreed to take up the case last fall after lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, blocked Trump’s attempt to use IEEPA to enact import duties.””
.
“The Constitution clearly reserves the right to set taxes to Congress.”
Yet the Constitution clearly gives the Negotiations for Trade in the power of the Executive. Tariffs are trade, not taxes anymore. This prevents the executive from negotiating trade deals and doing every day diplomacy. That’s clearly executive in the Constitution.
I see both arguments as valid.
The question is how to resolve the issue, and I think that Legislative needs to allow the Executive freedom to negotiate including ‘tariffs’, rather than use the power over the military to ‘pursued’ other nations.
Why do you think the Scumpreme Court pulled this crap this morning when the President was meeting with the hate-filled RAT governors?
Trump should put forth an Amendment to the Constitution for ratification by the states for a Balanced Budget Amendment that includes stripping all Congress who fail of ability to hold future office or get Government pensions or health care.
Watch how fast Congress will be motivated for the Executive to negotiate those Tariffs.
The Globalists are tough to beat. Tariffs were working magnificently.
“”So how could private individuals have standing to take this to the Supreme Court?””
The president - government - took it to the Supreme Court but I have no idea who the plaintiffs were who made that necessary.
“... and it sets up the precedent for Democrat actions later.” Not really. They will do what they want and get away with it, regardless of what Republicans do now.
Maybe only the 3 dissenting justices will be in attendance. No shame would allow the others to show up....
Tribal sovereignty case in Oklahoma.
That would seem to be the argument that the USSC used..perhaps go back with a different argument?
AJs Alito and Thomas won’t go and I believe have not gone for years.
GOOD - then a re-do is in order for the others not under IEEPA? Burn the midnight oil and get ‘er done...
“”Does this mean we have to refund everybody the tariffs we collected from them????””
Apparently that’s the idea - companies will sue to get refunds. How many ways did the president promise to spend this money? Not smart!!
It’s too early in the day to be dreaming...dreams are for nighttime!
AND it takes Epstein and Tucson off the front page....
Sweeping vs targeted. Apparently, the SC was ruling sweeping tariffs across the global board were subject to Congressional accord. But , they left targeted tariffs, as to individual nations and/or specific goods from specific nations open. Trump has a Plan B depending on how the court ruled. I am betting it involves a shotgun combo of targeted tariffs on specific nations and placing import quotas as to specific goods from specific nations.
Congress began delegating significant tariff-setting authority to the President starting in the 1930s, moving away from setting specific rates directly. Key legislation includes the Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934, the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232), and the Trade Act of 1974, which allow the President to modify tariffs for trade negotiations, national security, and economic emergencies.
In 1930s, the SCOTUS should have killed this precedent. Guess they stopped reading the constitution back then too!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.